IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 10.01.2025 M/S ARUN DEV BUILDERS LTD. …. PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER …. RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr.Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.1554 dated 30.09.2022 registered at Police Station Shivaji Nagar, District Gurugram, under Section 174-A IPC (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties in the original case i.e. FIR No.279/2021, under Section 406, 420 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station New Colony, District Gurugram.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned FIR under section 174 IPC was registered on the basis of an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (for short ‘District Commission’) against the petitioner on 29.08.2022 in the execution proceedings initiated by respondent No2.

Such order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana. Thereafter during the execution proceedings, a settlement was arrived between the parties before the District Commission, annexed at Annexure P-7 and the entire amount as agreed upon has been paid to respondent No.2. The same was duly recorded in the order passed by District Commission on 23.11.2022 (Annexure P-9) as well. Further, the drill of the mandatory provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been followed in the present case, which is pre-requisite for filing of an FIR under Section 174-A IPC. 3. Learned State counsel affirms the factum of settlement. However, he could not controvert the fact that the drill of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was not followed before registering FIR(supra).

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record it appears that the matter pertaining to FIR No.279 already stands settled by the parties as the petitioner has paid the amount agreed upon to respondent No.2. As such, no useful purpose will be served if proceedings under FIR (supra) are allowed to continue. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the judgments rendered in, Baldev Chand Bansal vs. State of Haryana and another CRM-M43813- 2018 decided on 29.01.2019, Vikas Sharma vs. Gurpreet Singh Kohli and another 2017(3) L.A.R. 584, Microqual Techno Limited and others Vs. State of Haryana and another 2015 (32) RCR (Crl.) 790 and Rajneesh Khanna Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2017(3) L.A.R.

555.

5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Vikas Gupta vs. State of Haryana and others CRM-M-19636-2018 decided on 01.08.2018, while quashing the FIR under Section 174-A of the IPC, speaking through Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, has made the following observations:

“The ultimate aim, objective and goal of a legal system is to reconcile the social conflicts. Law is required only to ensure that people do not have to fight with each other just to protect their right to property, right to life and liberty and other rights secured to them by the legal system. The civil disputes are the conflicts between two parties, having lesser overtones for the social order, social harmony or the society as such. Hence absolute freedom is given to the parties to settle their disputes by compromises, of course, coming with certain legal consequences as well. However, the criminal disputes do not necessarily restrict themselves to only two parties to the dispute in terms of their scope, consequences and effect. The criminal acts tend to cast their effect and consequences even upon the society at large. Therefore, the law prescribes punishment, severe punishments and the extreme punishments, including death penalty for criminal acts.”

6. Moreover, the drill of Section 195 Cr.P.C. has not been complie